The President and the Executive Yuan Must Solve the Rancid Oil Crisis

The President and the Executive Yuan Must Solve the Rancid Oil Crisis
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 16, 2014

Summary: The 2011 plasticizing agent crisis was followed by the 2013 contaminated oil crisis, which was in turn followed by the current rancid oil crisis. One food safety crisis has followed another. They have shaken public confidence. They have shaken the nation's foundations. President Ma Ying-jeou must consider whether to invoke the national security mechanism.

Full Text Below:

The 2011 plasticizing agent crisis was followed by the 2013 contaminated oil crisis, which was in turn followed by the current rancid oil crisis. One food safety crisis has followed another. They have shaken public confidence. They have shaken the nation's foundations. President Ma Ying-jeou must consider whether to invoke the national security mechanism.

In recent years, one food safety crisis has followed another. The government and the public must realize that this is not an isolated event, but involves deep-rooted structural problems. Unless the structure is changed, food safety crises will continue to erupt. These food safety crises are akin to malignant tumors. They did not form overnight. In 2011 the plasticizer crisis erupted. Cheap industrial plasticizers were added to foods as clouding agents. But this could be traced back to the 1980s. In 2013, the contaminated oil crisis erupted. But as far back as the 1970s businessmen were mixing low-priced cottonseed oil with higher quality oil to make a dishonest profit. The current rancid oil crisis is not the first of its kind. In 1985 the De Tai Oil Company skimmed the oil from the surface of rancid leftovers and resold it as cheap vegetable oil at huge profits for 10 years.

These food safety crises are akin to malignant tumors. They have a long history behind them. Governments have come and gone. Blue and green parties have followed, one after the another. To cure the problem at its root, requires a structural diagnosis, institutional change, and conceptual transformation. It requires the president as head of state to mobilization every government agency at his disposal.

The management and control of food safety crises requires the legislature to amend the laws. In this regard, the president has the constitutional authority to mediate between the different branches of government. He can raise the issue to a higher level. He can show that the government attaches great importance to food safety and reassuring the public.

Invoking the national security mechanism may provoke charges of grandstanding. The presidential office might hesitate. Even so, President Ma should at least consider 2011, when the plasticizing agent incident erupted, or 2013, when fishermen from Taiwan were shot and killed by the Philippines government. He should organize a presidential-level ad hoc group, or convene a meeting at the national security level to assist the various ministries and integrate their efforts.

Raising the issue to a higher level is the proper response. Next, he must review current practices and propose substantive changes. This requires new laws, government oversight, and public morality.

Take new laws. In response to the rancid oil crisis, Premier Jiang Yi-hua advocated tougher punishments, increased fines, and other measures. Health Minister Wen-Ta Chiu proposed increasing the sentence for criminal industry practices from 5 years in prison to 15 years.

Leave aside for the moment whether this Draconian rhetoric is consistent with contemporary concern for the rule of law. Leave aside for the moment criticisms that harsher penalties are a patchwork quilt approach to crime. The penalties for Crime A can be steadily increased until they exceed the penalties for Crime B. This undermines the principle of balance and proportionality in criminal liability.

Merely amending the law to impose harsher penalties will not eliminate such behavior by black-hearted businessmen. For example, last year's contaminated oil incident contributed to amendments in the food safety laws, including harsher penalties. Yet one year later, the rancid oil crisis erupted. Now take the plasticizer crisis. Lai Chun-chieh and his wife headed up the Yu Shen Spice Company. They were sentenced to 12 years in prison. That is hardly a slap on the wrist. Yet it failed to prevent the reccurence of food safety incidents.

As we can see, even capital crimes still have unscrupulous businessmen willing to commit them. Therefore amending the law must not be simplistically equated with harsher penalties. What is necessary is systemic oversight of the entire manufacturing process, from farm to table. This must include product history, quality control testing, safety warnings, and food certification. Every link in the chain must be scrutinized and subject to institutional review.

Take government oversight. Amending the law to provide harsh penalties may allow society to undergo an emotional catharsis. But government enforcement methods and attitudes are the real key. Heavy penalties may make unscrupulous individuals pay a higher price for their crimes. But they cannot change the evil in their hearts. We must crackdown. We must not let anyone to slip through the net. We must not allow them to escape detection. Only then can we prevent such crimes beforehand.

The attitude held by the government and law enforcement during the rancid oil crisis was unacceptable. Society has progressed. Public expectations about food quality are much higher than before. The Food and Drug Agency adopted a "you won't die from eating it" attitude and gave rancid oil a green light, leaving people flabbergasted. Meanwhile scientific and technological progress and advances inchemical technology, have enabled unscrupulous businessmen to adopt a "see the standard, cheat the standard" approach to government testing. This has become another form of technological opportunism. The government, meanwhile, clings to the original tests. It is either too naive or too lazy.

The Food and Drug Agency's "greenlight consciousness" provides us with an indirect answer. Faced with a food safety crisis, the government should have a watchman's "redlight consciousness." It should adopt the same point of view as the public. It should apply either the same standards or even stricter standards. Only then can it truly act as a watchdog for food safety. When faced with unscrupulous operators using advances in chemical technology to cheat the government's food safety net, the government must keep pace or even keep ahead of new testing methods, It must develop new testing standards to prevent people from getting around them.

The third requirement is the elevation of public morality. This includes corporate social responsibility and increased public food safety awareness. Regarding the former, businesses must engage in collective review. They have been given a lesson in the procurement of raw materials. The food manufacturing process requires more stringent standards. Regarding the latter, the public on Taiwan did well. They exposed Yang Chi-cheng, who was responsible for the plasticizer poisoning incident. Elderly farmers undaunted by callous authorities, persisted and exposed those responsible for the rancid oil crisis. They are the guardians of food safety in Taiwan society. They are also real heroes who protected our health. Their spirit is worth emulating.

Finally, the key to a multitude of problems, is invariably the government. Is must not adopt a foot-dragging attitude. It must not hope to ride out the media storm and wait for public passions to die down. People do not need a pacifier to distract them. They need a government that will offer real solutions, and enable the people to avoid food safety nightmares to begin with.

社論－啟動府院機制 解決餿油危機
2014年09月16日 04:10
本報訊

從2011年的塑化劑風暴、

2013年的混油風暴到目前還在延燒的餿油風暴。一波波食安海嘯，不只動搖人心，更動搖國本。馬英九總統應慎重思考是否啟動國安機制以為因應。

近幾年的食安連爆，政府與國人都必須深思，這已不是「單一事件」，而涉及深層的結構問題。結構之因不除，食安炸彈還會繼續爆炸。這些食安毒瘤都不是一時三刻成形的，例如2011年爆發的塑化劑風暴，在食品添加用的起雲劑中使用廉價的工業用塑化劑，可以上溯至1980年代；2013年的混油風暴，遠從1970年代就有商人以低價棉籽油混高級油牟利；此次的餿油風暴非首例，1985年就曾爆發德泰油行以餿水中浮油製成劣質沙拉油販售獲取暴利長達10年。

這些食安毒瘤，以「歷史共業」的形態長期存在，歷經不同政府、跨越藍綠執政，要將禍因拔根斷絕，涉及結構診斷、制度變革、觀念改造，需要總統以國家元首的高度，跨政府部門全體動員。

而食安危機的管控也涉及立法院的修法，對此，總統具有院際協調的憲政高度。拉高層級，也有顯示政府重視食安與安定民心的作用。

也許「啟動國安機制」會招來作秀之譏，府方會因此猶豫。即便如此，馬總統也至少應該比照2011年的塑化劑事件或2013年的我國漁民在遭菲方射殺的廣大興事件，成立府級的專案小組或召開擴大的國安高層會議，協助並統合各部會因應危機。

拉高層級是因應危機的形式。接下來，則要進行實質檢討並提出變革作法。這應從法制建構、政府管理與國人道德的三方面著手。

在法制建構方面。針對餿油風暴，行政院長江宜樺提出了提高刑度、增加罰金等方式。衛福部長邱文達也表示，要加重不法業者刑責，從5年提高到15年。

先不論嚴刑峻法的論調是否符合現代的法治國的趨勢，也不談「補丁式」的提高罰則，可能會變成甲罪不斷提高罰則，最後其課刑超越罪性更重的乙罪，破壞國家對不法賦課刑責的平衡性與比例性。

單單從結果論，也可發現，單靠「修法重罰」，並不能杜絕黑心歪風。例如，去年的混油事件，促成食衛法修法，加重罰則，但1年後還是發生了牽連更廣的餿油風暴。又如，在塑化劑風暴中，涉案的昱伸香料公司負責人賴俊傑夫婦分別被判15年、12年定讞，刑度也不輕，亦未能遏止其他危害食安事件繼續發生。

可見殺頭生意還是有不肖商人敢以身試法，因此，法制建構不能被簡化為修法重罰，而應建立流程管理制度，從農場到餐桌，包括產品履歷、品管檢測、安全預警、食品認證，全面檢視每一個環節，進行制度檢討。

在政府管理方面，修法重罰有宣洩社會情緒的作用，但政府有沒有與時俱進的執法方法與執法態度，才是箇中關鍵。重罰，拉高不法者付出的代價，但斷不了僥倖之心。努力做到不漏網的嚴打，讓不法無所遁形，才能阻絕不法。

此次餿油風暴中，政府的執法方法和執法態度都不及格。社會進步，國人對食品的要求已大幅提高，食藥署卻對擺出「吃不死人」的態度，做出「綠燈」結論，讓人傻眼。另一方面，科技進步，化工技術日新月異，不肖業者針對政府的檢驗標準採取「見標拆標」的破解式，已變成另一種科技投機。政府卻還死守原來的檢驗標準，不是太天真、就是太懶惰。

但食藥署的「綠燈心態」，正好提供了一個反面解答：面對食安風暴，政府該擁有的是守門人的「紅燈心態」。在觀念上，要和人民同標準甚至超標準，才能為人民食安把關；在方法上，面對不肖業者利用化工技術的進步去破解政府的食安防護網，政府也要同步甚至超前發展新的檢驗方法，製訂新的檢驗標準去「反破解」。

第三則是國人道德的提升，這包括企業社會責任感與台灣人民食安意識的提升。前者，是企業要集體檢討的，經此教訓，在採購原料、食品製程中要以更嚴格的標準自律。而後者，台灣民眾這方面的表現不錯，包括揪出塑化劑毒害的楊技正，以及餿油風暴中不畏惡勢力持續檢舉的老農民，他們都是台灣社會的食安哨兵，也是保護我們健康的真正英雄，這精神值得全民學習。

最後，萬結的核心，還是政府。不能只是以「熬的態度」，象徵性的宣洩社會情緒，拖過新聞熱度。民眾需要的不是分散注意力的「安撫奶嘴」，而是要政府實實在在的拿出辦法，讓人民從此遠離食安夢魘。

Sunflower Student Movement: Tale of a Green Frankenstein

Sunflower Student Movement: Tale of a Green Frankenstein
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 14, 2014

Summary: The Sunflower Student Movement has become a political asset and a political liability for the DPP. In the asset column: Hardcore Sunflower Student Movement members are a new generation of Taiwan independence elements who advocate a Closed Door Policy. As such, they have become an important bargaining chip in DPP realpolitik. In the liability column: This force appeared at a critical juncture, just when the DPP was embarking on reform. In fact, it has become a major obstacle in the DPP's path toward reform.

Full Text Below:

The novel "Frankenstein" and its film adaptations depict mad scientist Viktor Frankenstein in his laboratory struggling to create a "perfect man." Instead he created a runaway monster known as "Frankenstein's monster" and incited a riot.

The Sunflower Student Movement has become a political asset and a political liability for the DPP. In the asset column: Hardcore Sunflower Student Movement members are a new generation of Taiwan independence elements who advocate a Closed Door Policy. As such, they have become an important bargaining chip in DPP realpolitik. In the liability column: This force appeared at a critical juncture, just when the DPP was embarking on reform. In fact, it has become a major obstacle in the DPP's path toward reform.

The Sunflower Student Movement took place exactly six months ago. Now that the dust has settled, we may wish to reassemble some the pieces in this jigsaw puzzle. On the night of March 18, a number of important events took place. One. A group of green camp professional students assumed leadership of a number of social movements and protesters. Two. Taiwan independence elements organized and led the movement. Three. The Legislative Yuan underestimated the situation and failed to respond adequately. Four. DPP legislators monitored the doors. Five. Wang Jin-pyng forbade police to touch the legislators who were monitoring the doors. Six. The administration tripped over its own feet in all the confusion. The result was the occupation of the Legislative Yuan. But the occupation was not initially perceived as a "student movement." It was perceived as merely another green camp political incident.

Once the leaders occupied the Legislative Yuan premises they immediately spun their protest as part of a "student movement." Their main agenda was: One. They do not trust cross-Strait political exchanges. They guard against "China," i.e., Mainland China. They resist "China." They fear "China." They worry about globalization and liberalization. In short, they remain an integral part of the green axis. Two. They hope to inculcate a "deprived generation" political consciousness. For students late to the game this is especially compelling. It smacks of a "student wave" or "student movement." In the beginning, the occupiers' chief demand was to "review the STA line by line." But by the time the protests drew to a close, the demands had become "first legislate, then review," amend the referendum law, and convene a "Citizens Constitutional Conference." The occupiers' quickly changed their tune, and obstructed passage of STA and FEPZ Regulations. In other words, the occupiers' agenda changed from "review of the STA line by line" to forcing Taiwan to adopt the path of Taiwan independence, politically as well as economically. By this time, the green innards of the entire political struggle were clear for all to see.

The Sunflower Student Movement impacted campuses, students, the community, and the political scene. But its Taiwan independence and anti-globalization agenda was clear for all to see. This ensured that it would not become the ROC's strategy for national survival. In fact, these are all core DPP policies. The DPP knows it has failed to reform its cross-Strait policy path. Today the Sunflower Student Movement's inner party members have taken up the banner of Taiwan independence. But advocacy of Taiwan independence and opposition to globalization can never become the mainstream solution to Taiwan's survival.

Six months after the protests, the result has been just as predicted. The Sunflower Student Movement "stars" have not become standard bearers of the mainstream solution to Taiwan's survival. What they have become is stumbling blocks standing in the way of DPP cross-Strait policy reform. Some participants in the 1990 Wild Lily Student Movement are DPP supporters and followers. But Sunflower Student Movement leaders consider themselves DPP competitors. They have expressed solidarity with Hong Kong. They have visited the United States. They have established their own organization. They have proclaimed themselves the new standard bearers for Taiwan independence. Sunflower Student Movement inner circle leaders have affirmed their green political colors. They also consider themselves "new green" as opposed to "old green." Given current developments, the Sunflower Student Movement could become another green party allied with the DPP, such as the Taiwan Independence Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union. Anyone who imagines that the Sunflower Student Movement offers a new solution for Taiwan's survival acceptable to the mainstream, is sorely mistaken. Why? Because Taiwan independence is not new. It is old. Sunflower Student Movement inner circle leaders occupied the Legislative Yuan. Do they think their successful occupation means that young people or society as a whole endorses Taiwan independence, they are badly deluded. The Sunflower Student Movement had only one significant impact. It emerged as a competitor with the DPP for green camp standard bearer status. This has made DPP cross-Strait policy reform even more difficult.

In recent years, the DPP has boasted that that "Taiwan independence poll ratings continue to rise." The Sunflower Student Movement was even seen as evidence that "Taiwan independence has a new generation of supporters." But how many people in fact support Taiwan independence? Can Taiwan independence become a viable strategy for national survival? These are two different things. How does the DPP intend to perceive the Sunflower Student Movement's "belated Taiwan independence?" Is it an asset or a liability? That is the DPP's political dilemma.

The Sunflower Student Movement "celebrities" were either mentored by the DPP or have green camp pedigrees.  DPP "big shots" now realize they must forsake their Taiwan independence path. Meanwhile, the Sunflower Student Movement has become the new Taiwan independence standard bearer. A handful of Sunflower Student Movement leaders have hijacked the DPP. If they fail to change the Sunflower Student Movement, the DPP will not be able to undertake cross-Strait policy reform. The Sunflower Student Movement leaders are no longer vassals of the DPP. They have their own flag. Are they likely to yield to the DPP?

The Sunflower Student Movement is the result of long-term DPP indoctrination. Now however, it has become a massive barrier standing in the way of DPP policy reform. If the DPP cannot break through the Sunflower Student Movement barrier, it cannot meet the test of global challenges and cross-Strait policy. The stalled STA is a clear illustration.

The DPP must cope with its own creation, a Frankenstein's monster. Should it be glad or sad?



回看太陽花：綠色法蘭肯斯坦的故事
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.14 02:04 am

小說及電影《科學怪人》有一版本：瘋狂科學家法蘭肯斯坦想要在實驗室裡用盡辦法打造出一個「完美的人」，最後卻製造出一個作亂、失控的怪物，稱作「法蘭肯斯坦的怪物」。

太陽花事件已成為民進黨的政治資產與負債。說資產，是太陽花的核心分子是主張台獨鎖國的綠色新世代，成為民進黨現實政治博弈上的重要籌碼；說負債，是這股勢力在民進黨嘗試轉型的關鍵時刻登上舞台，其實也成為民進黨轉型的擋路巨石。

太陽花事件發生至今正好六個月，激盪的氛圍沉澱後，不妨回過頭來重組這一幅散亂的拼圖。三一八事發當晚的重要元素是：一、一群以社運及抗議為常業的綠色背景學生主導；二、獨派的衝組帶頭；三、輕估情勢的立院警衛配置及肆應；四、民進黨立委把門；五、王金平不准警察碰把門立委；六、當局的回應相互牽制及錯亂……。這些元素造成了占領立院的情勢，但當時尚未視其為「學運」，而以為是又一次的綠色街頭政治事件。

帶頭者占領立院議場後，立即有了「學運」的形式。其主要號召是：一、對兩岸政務的不信任，防中、抗中、恐中及對全球化開放路線的憂慮，這仍是一條綠色軸線。二、激發「世代剝奪」的思考，這對後來進入事件的學生更具挑唆力，遂有了「學潮」或「學運」的態勢。一開始，占領行動的主訴求是：「逐條審議服貿協議」，但至事情收尾時，訴求已變成「先立法／後審查」、補正公投法、召開公民憲政會議，並又迅速變成全力杯葛服貿協議及自由經濟示範區條例。也就是說，事件主軸已由「逐條審查服貿協議」，轉變為逼迫台灣採行台獨的政經路線。至此，整個事件又回復其骨子裡的綠色政治鬥爭的面貌。

太陽花事件雖對校園、學生及社會與政局發生了一定的衝擊，但可以確定的是，其暴露的台獨立場及反全球化之主張，絕無可能成為救台灣的國家生存戰略。事實上，這些皆是民進黨的核心政策，但民進黨已自知失敗而在尋求轉型之道，如今即使換成了太陽花核心圈人物來持旗，亦無可能使台獨及反全球化成為救台灣的主流方案。

在事件發生六個月後，已可預言：太陽花的鋒頭核心圈不可能成為救台主流方案的擎旗者，卻儼然成了民進黨兩岸政策轉型的擋路巨石。一九九○年野百合學運的一些參與者，是民進黨的支持者與追隨者；但太陽花檯面人物卻是以民進黨的引領者及競爭者自居。這段時間，他們聲援香港、訪問美國，已然是另樹一幟，自命為台獨路線的新旗手。太陽花核心圈不但回復了綠色的本貌，而且自認是有別於老綠的新綠，看如今之發展，也可能如建國黨、台聯黨一般成為民進黨的綠色友黨。因而，若認為太陽花事件可以帶出新的救台主流方案，那是誤解，因為台獨是舊案不是新案；太陽花核心人物若將占領立法院視為台獨路線受到青年或社會的背書，這將是十分離譜的自我感覺良好。其實，太陽花事件留下的最重大的政治效應卻是：民進黨在綠營的旗手地位出現了新的競爭者，已使民進黨的兩岸政策轉型工程更形進退維谷。

民進黨近年頗以「民調的台獨支持率不斷上升」為榮，更認為太陽花事件證實了「台獨世代交替」的現象，以此傲人。但是，就理智上說，有多少人支持台獨，與台獨是否能成為可行的國家生存戰略，卻是兩回事。因而，民進黨究竟應將太陽花這股「遲來的台獨」視為資產或負債，誠為一政治弔詭。

太陽花鋒頭人物皆直接出自民進黨的培育或有綠色淵源，但當民進黨內的「大人們」警覺台獨路線必須調整之時，太陽花卻已成了台獨鎖國的新旗手。民進黨如今已被少數太陽花領袖挾持，若不改變太陽花，民進黨走不出轉型之路；但太陽花已不再是民進黨的附庸而有了自己的旗幟，豈會輕易讓路給民進黨？

太陽花的出現是民進黨長期洗腦的成果，但如今太陽花已成了民進黨轉型的巨大障礙。民進黨若衝不過太陽花這一關，就沒有能力迎對兩岸及全球化難題的考驗，服貿協議卡住即是共見的例證。

民進黨這位法蘭肯斯坦，面對自己的作品，是該喜悅或憂愁？

Academic Ability Test Cancelled, but Problems Remain

Academic Ability Test Cancelled, but Problems Remain
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 12, 2014

Summary: Under pressure from all quarters, Taipei City and Taichung City announced that next year they would follow the lead of other counties and municipalities, and no longer hold the Academic Ability Test for Admission to Senior High School. Tainan City alone insists on holding them. The Academic Ability Test for 12 Year Compulsory Education will be terminated this year. Junior high school admissions will no longer require Academic Ability Tests. But without Academic Ability Tests, the 12 Year Compulsory Education System will suffer numerous shocks and long-term effects. Educational authorities and junior and senior high schools must think hard about how to respond.

Full Text Below:

Under pressure from all quarters, Taipei City and Taichung City announced that next year they would follow the lead of other counties and municipalities, and no longer hold the Academic Ability Test for Admission to Senior High School. Tainan City alone insists on holding them. The Academic Ability Test for 12 Year Compulsory Education will be terminated this year. Junior high school admissions will no longer require Academic Ability Tests. But without Academic Ability Tests, the 12 Year Compulsory Education System will suffer numerous shocks and long-term effects. Educational authorities and junior and senior high schools must think hard about how to respond.

In June, the State Education Department said that Academic Ability Tests are no different from the Comprehensive Assessment Program for Junior High School Students. It said that "one way would be to cancel Academic Ability Tests." Almost all counties and municipalities have eliminated Academic Ability Tests. Yet the Ministry of Education insists that schools should be encouraged to continue Academic Ability Tests to ensure diversity in admissions. They should not return to the old path where "a single exam will determine the rest of one's life." Such changes leave people baffled. In any case, this year the exam system for 12 Year Compulsory Education is in chaos. The current situation was inevitable.

Cancelling the Academic Ability Test leaves the Comprehensive Assessment Program. Examinations are still required. In fact, the Comprehensive Assessment Program will become the sole means of screening. A single exam will determine the rest of one's life. The Comprehensive Assessment Program was supposed to be a remedy. Now, however, it is used to grade one's ability. Next year's Comprehensive Assessment Program results will eliminate "three classes and four lables." It will add scoring on a scale of one to ten if needed, to meet enrollment where students are more numerous. As a result, the Comprehensive Assessment Program will become more like basic examinations in the past. Students must answer every question. Every point will count. The Comprehensive Assessment Program will be turned into a basic examination. Admissions will be "unified." In fact, it will be more at odds with the spirit of 12 Year Compulsory Education.

The Academic Ability Tests have become a whipping boy. The main reason is the chasm separating ideals from reality. The Academic Ability Tests were originally supposed to determine which schools were exceptional, and to design and teach special curricula. It was supposed to adapt itself to the needs of the students. It was supposed to counsel them to help them reach their full potential. The emphasis was on the design and teaching of special curricula. In reality, the Academic Ability Tests have become the means by which elite schools are allowed to pick over the most gifted students, and so-so schools are left to fight over the rest, in a struggle to save face. The Academic Ability Tests also lengthen the semester. Most schools wait for the elite schools to finishing picking through their candidates. Most students wait for the elite students to find their seats first. This is why the Academic Ability Tests have become everyone's target.

In the past, the policy was to recruit special students, but offer no special curricula. The suspicion was that recruiting the 10% special students would hijack the other 90% of the student body. Now that the Academic Ability Tests have been discontinued, we need to ask ourselves whether we still intend to develop elite senior high schools. New students in September will be the only class enrolled by means of the Academic Ability Tests. Over the next three years, do we still intend to maintain the special curricula? New students next year will not be Academic Ability Test recruits. Schools must consider how they intend to retain their special curricula. Many schools say they will not hold Academic Ability Tests, but that will continue to develop special curricula. But can they actually make any of this happen? That remains to be seen.

We now face immediate consequences. Some ninth graders still hope to participate in the Academic Ability Tests. They may have exceptional academic aptitude. But they may not have scored well in the community, in competitions, in service-learning for a variety of reasons. Therefore they are making a special effort to do well in the Academic Ability Tests. Now, however, counties and municipalities have announced that they are discontinuing the Academic Ability Tests. How can we help them make up the necessary marks and hours during the coming year? That will be a major challenge. Also, many students may have moved. They may have been studying their ideal senior high curriculum or subjects. They hope to be graduate by means of the Academic Ability Tests. Once this door is closed, these students who transferred or changed school districts, will face problems in counties and municipalities with excess enrollment.

In Tainan City this year, a student who received a perfect score still could not be admitted. He could become an "Academic Ability Test valedictorian." This might make Tainan City more careful about ensuring diversity in admissions. The student failed to accumulate enough points and was therefore dropped. Tainan City has a complex method for evaluation. This leads to a huge irony. Recently one Tainan City Elementary School PTA chairman openly exhibited a price list for admission to the PTA. The chairman said allowing children to participate in community service and extracurricular competitions will help address the problem of excess student enrollment. Such blatant practices amount to competing for points.

The above examples are not all the fault of Academic Ability Tests. Counties and municipalities may or may not cancel the Academic Ability Tests. But they must make reasonable adjustments to excess admission numbers and order. Otherwise, in Keelung and Taipei, diversity in admissions will be a sham. The Comprehensive Assessment Programs will be deceit. In Tainan, the spirit of diversity will result in vicious competition, grabbing of cadres, participation in sports, and phony community service. How can 12 Year Compulsory Education not be led astray?

The enthusiasm for Academic Ability Tests is dying. The spirit of pluralism has been shaken. Se Hwa Wu, Minister of Education, can only encourage elite senior high schools to hold small scale Academic Ability Tests. He wants elite senior high schools to boldly tell the community, "We have a special curriculum, we want to recruit certain kinds of students." In fact, we should first ask schools to cease using Academic Ability Tests to grab the best students, and instead devote themselves to developing special curricula, Only then can we jettison 12 Year Compulsory Education egalitarianism, and return to "diversity in admissions, and the education of students according to their abilities."

停辦特招後，還有一堆問題要面對
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.12 02:19 am

在各界壓力下，台北市和台中市繼其他縣市之後宣布明年不辦理特招，如今僅剩台南市堅持續辦。至此，今年首度實施的十二年國教特招考試分發入學將成絕響，國中會考則成為「免試」入學的唯一考試。然而，沒有特招的十二年國教仍將面臨許多衝擊，並對教育造成長遠影響，教育當局及各國高中都不能不嚴肅思考、因應。

國教署六月間曾說，如果特招跟會考沒區別，「取消特招也是一種方式」；而今，幾乎所有縣市都放棄特招之後，教育部卻反而說，鼓勵各校續辦特招維持多元入學，不要回到「一試定終身」的老路。這樣的變化，讓人無法捉摸。無論如何，今年十二年國教升學制度繁複冗長，亂象橫生，如今發展成這樣的情勢，恐怕也是必然的結果。

取消特招，尚有會考，仍非免試；甚至，會考將因此成為篩選的唯一管道，一試定命運。會考原本具有「能力補救」的作用，現在不得不拿來作為「能力分級」的手段；而明年會考成績除「三等第、四標示」外，必要時還要再加上十級量尺分數，以滿足學生較多的部分招生區鑑別需求。如此一來，會考將變得更像以往的基測，學生必須題題不漏，分分計較。會考「基測化」，加上入學「一元化」，其實更有違十二年國教精神。

特招之所以成為過街老鼠，主要是理想與現實的落差過大。特招的原意，是評鑑優良學校規劃特色課程與教學，並據以篩選適性學生，輔導助其揚才，重點仍在特色課程的設計和教學。現實上，特招卻淪為明星學校優先挑選資優學生、一般學校顧面子又搶學生的工具；加上特招拉長入學期程，多數學校等待少數名校挑完學生，多數學生等待少數菁英先就定位，遂使特招成為眾矢之的。

正因先前已見「有特色招生，沒特色課程」、「一成特招生挾持九成一般生」的質疑；如今，停辦特色招生考試後，更應思考的是：高中未來還要不要發展特色？尤其，面對九月剛入學的唯一一屆特招學生，未來三年的課程還要不要維持特色？至於明年入學皆非特招生，學校也要慎思如何保留特色課程？許多學校稱，不辦特招，仍將發展特色；但能否名實相副，都是未來的重要課題。

眼前立即面臨衝擊的，還有一些原本志在特招入學的本屆國三生。他們或許是學術能力傾向較強，或許因不同主客觀因素而無法在社團、競賽、服務學習等多元學習領域爭取高分，因而努力拚特招。現在各縣市相繼宣布停辦特招，在未來一年，如何協助他們在這段期間補足分數、時數的門檻，將是一大挑戰。此外，還有不少學生或因為遷居之故，或為就讀心目中理想的高中職課程群別或類科，希望透過特招考試跨區升學；在特招大門關閉後，這些學生不論轉學或變更學區，都將面臨各縣市超額比序積分不同的困擾。

至於台南市，今年一名會考「滿分落榜」卻成「特招狀元」的學生，或許能讓台南市在維持多元入學管道時有更慎重的考量。這個學生因比序積分不佳而在會考落榜，對台南市複雜的比序方式，形成莫大諷刺。再如，最近台南市某國小家長會長明列加入家長會的價目表，表示可讓孩子優先參加社團和校外比賽等有助於超額比序加分的項目；這種赤裸裸的作法，豈不也是競逐積分走火入魔使然？

上述事例，雖非全是特招之過，但各縣市不論是否取消特招，都該合理調整超額比序項目與順序。否則，在基北區，多元比序玩假的，唯會考是賴；到了台南，恪遵多元比序精神，卻帶起拚競賽、搶幹部、補體育、假服務的歪風。如此，十二年國教如何不走上歧途？

面對特招偃旗息鼓，多元精神蕩然，教育部長吳思華只能鼓勵有特色的高中辦理「小規模特招」，並要明星高中勇敢告訴社會「有什麼特色課程，要招收什麼樣的學生」。事實上，應先要求各校擺脫特招搶學生的心態，認真發展特色課程，才能打破十二年國教的平均主義，回歸「多元入學、適性揚才」的精神。

Rancid Oil Crisis: Government Cannot Disown Responsibility

Rancid Oil Crisis: Government Cannot Disown Responsibility
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 11, 2014

Summary: The CIB Southern Region Crime Fighting Center uncovered an underground factory engaged in the extraction of cooking oil from rancid leftovers. Its discovery touched off a new wave of food safety concerns. Over the past week the government has become increasingly vocal. More and more manufacturers have been implicated. More and more people are frightened. The government's competence has been called into question. More importantly, the laws have been shown to be inadequate, since they allowed manufacturers to commit these crimes. The operators involved lacked both conscience and social responsibility. What they did made people's hair stand on end. We are now forced to ask, does the per capita income on Taiwan still exceed 20,000 USD? Is the character of its people still its greatest tourist attraction?

Full Text Below:

The CIB Southern Region Crime Fighting Center uncovered an underground factory engaged in the extraction of cooking oil from rancid leftovers. Its discovery touched off a new wave of food safety concerns. Over the past week the government has become increasingly vocal. More and more manufacturers have been implicated. More and more people are frightened. The government's competence has been called into question. More importantly, the laws have been shown to be inadequate, since they allowed manufacturers to commit these crimes. The operators involved lacked both conscience and social responsibility. What they did made people's hair stand on end. We are now forced to ask, does the per capita income on Taiwan still exceed 20,000 USD? Is the character of its people still its greatest tourist attraction?

The rancid oil crisis has dealt a serious blow to Taiwan's long-held image as a "realm of haute cuisine." The US weekly Time Magazine reported on Taiwan's rancid oil scandal. Even the Mainland, which has long been troubled by food safety concerns, has urged the public to exercise caution with food products from Taiwan. Shanghai's Food and Drug Administration has removed 8,700 Taiwan foods from the shelves, and requested certification for future food sales from Taiwan.

The people as a whole are paying a heavy price for a single black-hearted manufacturer. We have expressed dismay. We have leveled criticisms. We must now seek constructive solutions. We must guard against such food safety crises in the future. A single black-hearted company produced rancid oil. Yet over a thousand companies have been implicated. They include major food manufacturers and reputable old line brands. Clearly our food production, management, and quality control systems have blind spots. Our job is to identify these blind spots, shine a light on them, and eliminate them. Three blind spots stand out in particular.

One. GMP failure. Many giant GMP companies have been implicated. This has led to criticism that the GMP system is worthless. Some even advocate its elimination. Elimination could be dangerous. An entire system should not be elminated due to a single case. The GMP system contains weaknesses, including the role of government grants, and the lack of consumer representatives among GMP members. This leads to concerns over "players acting as referees." This undermines the credibility of the GMP as a watchdog for food safety. Once the storm has passed, GMP operations should be subjected to comprehensive review, to bolster its gatekeeper function.

Two. Food safety inspection failure. During the turmoil, the Food and Drug Safety Department announced the test results for four rancid oil samples. They concluded that the oil would inflict no immediate harm on human health and gave it a "green light." This caused an uproar. The Food and Drug Safety Department added fuel to the fire. It illustrated how not to conduct crisis management. Its "inspection" merely underscored the inadequacy of the food inspection mechanism.

Passing an inspection does not mean that a food stuff is harmless and healthful. That is a delusion. Technology has advanced. Black-hearted merchants have improved their' refining techniques. Unscrupulous manufacturers are alchemists whose refining techniques have evolved to cheat the tests. When the enemy becomes more powerful, one must match its strength. The agencies responsible cannot rely exclusively on testing. Many food safety and chemical experts have proposed increasing the number of items inspected. They have recommended improvements in test methods. The agencies in charge should carefully study their recommendations and make good use of them.

Three. Government failures. This can be divided into central and local government failures. Strictly speaking, the first two forms of failure are central government level failures. The central government is responsible for legislation and policy. It is responsible for mending leaks in the system. The rancid oil scandal raises the issue of manpower shortages. It raises the question of whether we should emulate the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Should we establish a "Food Safety Investigation Bureau" that integrates central and local level management? The question warrants further consideration.

Nor should local government failures be overlooked. As in the past, even when local governments shared responsibility, they invariably pass the buck onto the central government. The rancid oil scandal shocked the nation. Naturally the central government cannot shirk responsibility. But Guo Liecheng's factory was located in Pingtung County. It too must assume responsibility.

People who lived around the Guo Liecheng factory could not stand the stench. They reported this to the Pingtung County Government repeatedly. Pingtung County authorities were the first line of defense in environmental protection and food safety. They failed to do their duty. Fortunately members of the public persevered. They redirected their efforts at the CIB Southern Region Crime Fighting Center. Only then was the scandal exposed. Otherwise, how much more rancid oil would the nation have swallowed because the Pingtung County Government sat on its hands? Yet during the search for the perpetrators, as with the Kaohsiung gas explosion incident, the central government bore all the blame. Local government got a free pass. The Pingtung County Government virtually disappeared from awareness during the search for responsible parties.

The search for responsibile parties must not become an excuse to lynch people in anger. The punishment must fit the crime. If two parties are responsible, one cannot punish one while giving the other a free pass. Selective enforcement and disproportionate punishment will only make the problem worse. Disproportionate punishment will merely encourage those responsible -- such as the Pingtung County Government -- to act even more unscrupulously, because they know they can get away with murder.

The above failures all demand systemic reform. The system must be reformed. But businesses must also have a sense of mission, and the public must remain vigilant. Both were missing in the food safety net. The recent controversy alerted the entire nation and forced it to reflect. We must not lose faith in the people of Taiwan. Guo Liecheng is a black-hearted businessman. But he does not represent everyone on Taiwan. The government must learn from its mistakes. It must address its blind spots, and prevent such scandals from recurring.

社論－走出餿油風暴 政府責無旁貸
2014年09月11日 04:10
本報訊

刑事局南部打擊犯罪中心破獲黑心餿水油地下工廠，揭開新一波食安風暴，一周來，政府的話愈說愈重、受累廠商愈來愈多、民眾的心愈來愈慌張。這起風暴不僅顯示政府管理能力出了問題，更涉及法令制度不完備，留下廠商為惡的空間，而涉案經營者沒有天良與社會責任感，更讓人髮指。我們不禁要問，台灣還是一個國民平均所得超過2萬美元、最美的風景是人的國家嗎？

餿油風暴也嚴重打擊台灣長期以來想要建立的美食王國形象。美國主流媒體《時代雜誌》等均報導台灣餿水油事件，甚至連長期受食安問題困擾的大陸，也「提醒」民眾注意台灣的食品安全，上海市食藥監局下架8700件台灣食品，並要求今後銷售涉及台灣食品必須提供合格證明。

為了一個黑心廠商，全體國人付出慘重代價！除了痛心與批評，更重要的是拿出建設性的做法，確保食安問題不會反覆發生。一個黑心廠商產製餿水油，竟能將一千多家企業「一網打盡」，還不乏食品大廠與眾多商譽卓著的老字號商家。這顯示食品的產製到管理，出現了結構性的品管盲點，首要之務就是要找出這些盲點，以強燈照射，徹底消除。這中間至少出現3個失靈盲點。

一是GMP失靈，由於許多GMP大廠也被捲入餿油風暴，引起各界批評GMP制度形同虛設，甚至主張廢除。廢除論恐有因噎廢食之虞，制度之立，不宜輕率因個案即破，但GMP制度運作上確有不足，也是實情，包括政府補助的角色、GMP協會的成員缺乏消費者代表等等，都會引起「球員兼裁判」的疑慮，也會降低GMP為優良食品把關的功能，應在此次風暴後，對GMP的運作全面體檢，強化其把關的功能。

二是食安檢驗失靈。在這次風暴中，食藥署為安民心，公布4個餿油樣品的檢測結果，做出對人體健康沒有立即傷害的「綠燈」結論，引起軒然大波。撇開食藥署又做了一次「火上添油」的危機管理負面示範，這次的「檢驗合格」，也恰顯示食品檢驗機制的不足與失靈。

根本的迷思是，檢驗合格等於無害健康嗎？科技昌明，也讓黑心煉油術不斷進化，不肖廠商如同暗黑煉金術士也不斷演化出對付「檢驗項目」的進化版煉油術。「魔長一丈，道就算不濟，也該長個一尺」，主管官署不能只仰賴檢驗技術與檢驗項目。而在這次事件，許多食安與化工專家均提出增加檢驗項目與改進檢驗方法的建議，主管機關實應認真研究與時俱進，擇善接納。

三是政府管理的失靈，這又分為中央與地方2個方面的失靈，在中央方面，嚴格來說，前面二者的失靈，也是一種中央管理的失靈，因為中央負責法規與政策的總體制訂，制度上的補漏，中央政府責無旁貸，此外，因為這次餿油風暴，引發了稽查人力不足的問題，也連帶引導諸如要不要仿美國FDA（食品藥物管理局）成立「食品安全調查局」，採中央、地方一條鞭式管理來加強食安，值得進一步整體規畫。

但地方政府的管理失靈，也不應忽視，一如過去的危機事件規律，即便地方有責，萬矢還是射向中央。在這次震撼全國的餿油事件，中央固然有無可推卸的責任，但郭烈成工廠所在的屏東縣政府，也應檢討其責任。

郭烈成的工廠周邊民眾受不了惡臭，屢次向屏東縣政府檢舉。身為環保、食安第一線機關的屏東縣政府卻沒有積極處理。還好民眾鍥而不舍改向刑事局南部打擊犯罪中心檢舉，才打破黑幕，否則全國民眾因為屏縣府的懈怠，還要吃多久的餿油？但在這一波的輿論究責中，如同高雄氣爆事件的複製，中央扛全責，地方全沒事。屏東縣政府幾乎從究責版面上神隱。

究責不能變成祭河神。找個人丟進河裡洩憤了事。誰犯多少錯，就該挨多少棒子。如果黑狗白狗一起犯錯，就不能把拿白狗開刀，卻放黑狗沒事。不合比例的究責，只會讓問題更嚴重，因為不合比例的究責，會讓需要要負責任的人如屏縣府心存僥倖、更肆無忌憚。

以上失靈處，都是制度改革的著力處，但除了改進制度外，企業的使命感與民眾的警覺心，仍是食安保護網不可或缺的二角。最後，這次風暴，確實是全體國人應一起警惕與反省的重大事件。但我們也不應因此對台灣的公民素質失去信心，郭烈成一廠的黑心，不能概等台灣全民的文化。政府要痛定思痛，針對失靈盲點找出改善方案，不讓風暴再起。

Cold-Blooded Killers: Islamic State a Threat to Global Security

Cold-Blooded Killers: Islamic State a Threat to Global Security
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 9, 2014

Summary: Obama administration military strategy specifies no ground troops. But two U.S. reporters were executed. Will Obama's policies change? That is worth watching. The Islamic State is not a direct threat to Islamic countries in East Asia, or to the Taiwan Region. But once the United States shifts the focus of its diplomacy, other policies will require adjustment. Its Pivot to Asia and confrontation with Mainland China, and its Ukrainian policy and confrontation with Russia, are likely to be diluted or compromised. This warrants our close attention.

Full Text Below:

The recently founded Islamic State (IS) has executed two American reporters in a row. The cold-blooded beheadings were performed by masked holy warriors with British accents. The executions were deliberately uploaded to the Internet, touching raw nerves in Western countries. These newly formed Islamic terrorist organizations are unpredictable in their appearance and character. They slaughter infidels and foreigners, enjoy abundant funding, and are running amok.

To say that the Islamic State has become the biggest threat to Middle East and even the world, is no exaggeration. It has conquered territories in Iraq and Syria. It has slaughtered hundreds of locals. It has kidnapped outsiders for ransom, beheaded them, then put them on public display. Worse still, it has absorbed holy warriors from dozens of different countries that are sympathetic to Islam. It has trained them to incite incidents and engage in combat. Western countries fear that once these holy warriors return home, they will engage in terrorist activities.

Recently, 50 British holy warriors who regretted their decision to join the Islamic State sought to return to the UK. But the British government has expressed suspicions about their motives, and so far has not given its consent. The United States is trying to prevent holy warriors from returning home to the US. They fear they will bring terrorism home with them. Meanwhile Denmark is instituting a "recovery plan" to help young holy warriors who lost their way reintegrate into society. A number of German Islamic holy warriors who planned to desert IS were branded as traitors and put to death.

Compared to the Ukraine crisis or Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the emergence of the Islamic State has given President Barack Obama even bigger headaches. When Obama recently spoke on the problem of IS, he admitted he had no countermeasures. This led to a public outcry. But he was telling the truth. The United States and its allies hope to destroy the Islamic State. But the task will be an arduous and lengthy one.

One. The various nations cannot and will not garrison troops in the area. Without ground troops raiding and invading, they cannot eliminate the Islamic State. Currently the United States has ordered only air strikes. On the battlefields of Iraq, it has provided ground support to Kurdish forces. On the battlefields of Syria, it relies on moderate rebels for support. But these rag-tag troops are poorly trained and poorly equipped. They are only able to score easy victories. They are not a force to be reckoned with.

Two. The Islamic State is transnational in character. The problem in Iraq is linked to the problem in Syria and must be solved concurrently. But the problems in Syria are myriad. America is unwilling to sit back and watch Syria fall to the Islamic State. But if air strikes annihilate Islamic State forces, they also remove a thorn in Assad's side, and help the regime survive. This is not what the United States wants. Nor is it what anti-Assad forces in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates want.

Three. Traditional friends and enemies in the Middle East have undergone a shuffle. Thirty years ago, the United States and Iran were at loggerheads. This won the US the support of the Persian Gulf countries. Today, in order to crush the Islamic State, Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini has issued a fatwah authorizing military action in Iran and coordination with military commanders. The United States has yet to mention military cooperation with Iran. But according to reports, the two sides discussed the situation in Iraq during nuclear talks. The United States has provided secret assistance to government forces in Syria. It passed intelligence to the Syrian government through Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, enabling the Syrian Army to strike specific targets in the Islamic State.

During a recent NATO summit, Obama invited nine countries to form a "core alliance" to fight IS. US Secretary of State John Kerry did not mince words. He said this would be a lengthy struggle. Maybe one year, two years, or three years. The number of foreign holy warriors in the Islamic State now numbers seven to eight thousand. If they return home, they could bring their terrorist activities back home.

The executioner of the two American reporters had a British accent. Audiences around the world shuddered. An estimated 500 British citizens are participatibng the Islamic State Jihad. Britain wants to send special forces to arrest them. But that is easier said than done. Airlines have been ordered not to allow people on the blacklist board. But for terrorists determined to attack, such barriers are easy to circumvent. The number of United States citizens participating in the Jihad is estimated at a mere 100 people. But the United States is the global hegemon. Therefore it can easily become the object of blame. It is much more likely to be targeted.

With strong financial backing, and bold, callous moves, the Islamic State has become the new world leader of terrorism. From Yemen to Africa, terrorist organizations have announced the establishment of Caliphates of the Islamic State. Spiritual calls to arms, plus Internet propaganda, have enabled the Islamic State to become the most threatening terrorist group to the West since Al-Qaeda. 

Obama administration military strategy specifies no ground troops. But two U.S. reporters were executed. Will Obama's policies change? That is worth watching. The Islamic State is not a direct threat to Islamic countries in East Asia, or to the Taiwan Region. But once the United States shifts the focus of its diplomacy, other policies will require adjustment. Its Pivot to Asia and confrontation with Mainland China, and its Ukrainian policy and confrontation with Russia, are likely to be diluted or compromised. This warrants our close attention.

冷酷殺手：伊斯蘭國是全球安全威脅
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.10 03:17 am

剛建國不久的「伊斯蘭國」（ＩＳ）最近連續處決兩名美國記者，冷酷的斬首手法，由操著英國口音的蒙面聖戰士執行，刻意透過網路放送，挑起了西方國家的敏感神經。這個新崛起的伊斯蘭恐怖組織，擁有外界無法預測的面貌和性格，一路屠殺異教徒及外國人，憑著豐厚的資金，橫行無阻。

說伊斯蘭國已成為中東地區、乃至全球最大的威脅，並不誇張。它不僅在伊拉克、敘利亞之間攻城掠地，動輒殺戮當地民眾，更將各路外來者當成綁票、勒贖、殺頭示眾的對象。尤有甚者，這個組織吸收了來自數十個不同國家同情伊斯蘭的「聖戰士」，在當地接受訓練，從事戰鬥；西方國家擔心，這些聖戰士一旦返國，會把恐怖活動帶回本土。

最近有五十名英國「聖戰士」因後悔參加「伊斯蘭國」，向英國申請返國；但英國對此頗表疑慮，並未立即同意。美國方面，則是設法攔阻聖戰士返國，唯恐他們將恐怖任務帶回本土。與此同時，丹麥則計畫透過帶有精神治療性質的「康復計畫」，幫助一時失足的年輕聖戰士重返社會。但是，也有德國的伊斯蘭聖戰士因意圖落跑，被ＩＳ當成叛徒處死。

比起烏克蘭危機或以巴衝突，伊斯蘭國的難題確實更讓美國總統歐巴馬頭痛。歐巴馬日前談論到ＩＳ問題時，坦言尚無因應戰略，引發輿論譁然；但他說的是事實，美國和盟國要想剿滅伊斯蘭國，任務是艱鉅而漫長的。

首先，各國派不出、也不肯派部隊進駐當地，但若無地面部隊掃蕩及堅壁清野，便無法徹底消滅伊斯蘭國。目前美國只能派軍空襲，在伊拉克戰場，地面支援以庫德族部隊為主；在敘利亞戰場，則靠溫和派叛軍對抗。然而，這些雜牌部隊訓練裝備都差，只能打順手戰，卻難成大事。

其次，由於伊斯蘭國是跨國界的，伊拉克問題必須要連結敘利亞問題一併解決。但是，敘利亞問題矛盾重重：美國不願意坐視伊斯蘭國攻陷敘利亞，但空襲打擊或殲滅了伊斯蘭國力量，等於替阿塞德去掉心腹大患，使其政權延續，這並非美國所樂見，也非反阿塞德的沙烏地與阿聯大公國所樂見。

第三，是中東傳統友敵的解構。卅年來，美國和伊朗一直敵對，藉此爭取波灣國家的支持；如今，為了殲滅伊斯蘭國，伊朗大教主哈梅尼發布敕令，授權伊朗指揮官與美軍協調軍事行動。儘管美方強調並未與伊朗進行任何軍事合作，但據報導，在美伊限核談判的空檔，雙方的確討論了伊拉克情勢，甚至傳出美國正秘密協助敘利亞政府軍，間接透過德國聯邦情報局傳遞情資，讓敘利亞政府軍擊中伊斯蘭國的特殊目標。

歐巴馬最近在北約峰會邀請九國組成「核心同盟」，共同對抗ＩＳ，但是美國務卿柯瑞不諱言，這是需要長時間的努力，「可能需要一年，二年或是三年。」尤其，伊斯蘭國的外籍聖戰士人數高達七、八千人；如果他們返國，都可能把恐怖活動帶回本土。

處決兩名美國記者的劊子手，操英國口音，讓全球觀眾不寒而慄。據估計，參加伊斯蘭國聖戰的英國公民達五百多人，英國之前要派特種部隊將他們緝捕歸案，但這談何容易？航空公司奉令不准讓黑名單上的人登機，但對存心攻擊的恐怖份子而言，這些障礙並不難繞過。美國參加「聖戰」的人數估計只有一百多人，但因為美國是全球霸權，容易成為歸罪的對象，成為攻擊目標的機會反而更大。

藉著雄厚的財力和大膽、冷酷的行動，伊斯蘭國如今已成為全球恐怖團體的新領袖。從葉門到非洲，都有恐怖組織宣布仿效伊斯蘭國成立哈里發國，精神上的號召，加上網路的宣傳，讓伊斯蘭國成為繼蓋達組織之後對西方最具威脅的恐怖團體。

歐巴馬政府目前考慮的所有出兵策略，都是以不派遣地面部隊為前提；但在兩名美國記者遭處決後，歐巴馬的政策會不會改變，值得觀察。儘管伊斯蘭國不致直接威脅東亞或台灣，但美國外交的重心一旦轉移，所有政策就會隨之調整，包括與中國對抗的「重返亞太」或與俄羅斯對抗的「烏克蘭政策」都可能淡化或妥協。這點，是值得我們注意的關鍵。

Hong Kong confirms One Country, Two Systems inapplicable to Taiwan

Hong Kong confirms One Country, Two Systems inapplicable to Taiwan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 8, 2014

Summary: We hope the impasse over universal suffrage in Hong Kong can be broken by means of a "five-step program," so as not to crash and burn. It would be a shame to destroy the political legacy of Deng Xiaoping's "one country, two systems." We hope that the Beijing authorities will "free their minds and acknowledge reality." We hope they will realize that Hong Kong-style "one country, two systems" cannot be implemented on Taiwan, and that the two sides should be thinking of a new "big roof concept of China" framework.

Full Text Below:

"One Country, Two Systems" was Beijing's original plan for dealing with the Taiwan region of the ROC. Instead, it was first implemented in Hong Kong. That year, just before Hong Kong retrocession, Jiang Zemin said that the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, was for Taipei's benefit. Its purpose was "to provide an example for the reunification of the motherland." Today the Hong Kong experience has proven that "one country, two systems" cannot be applied to the Taiwan Region of the ROC.

Hong Kong's attempt to elect its Chief Executive by means of universal suffrage has reached a bottleneck. The Republic of China is about to hold its sixth direct presidential election. Could the public on Taiwan ever accept a list of candidates nominated by a "Nomination Committee?" Could they ever accept candidates not nominated by political parties or by petition? Could they ever accept chief executive elections in place of presidential elections? Impossible.

If Beijing wants Taipei to substitute chief executive elections for presidential elections, it can do so in two ways. One. It can overrun Taiwan by means of military force. Two. It can apply economic and diplomatic sanctions to bring down the ROC government. But if it resorts to either of these methods to deal with a free and democratic Republic of China government, it will become an enemy of world civilization and a pariah in the international community. It will face a problem of governance that is insoluble. Beijing could resort to force or apply economic and diplomatic sanctions, and force Taipei into submission. It is feasible. It has the power. But doing so would create a irremediable catastrophe. It would create a dilemma difficult to resolve both within and without. Therefore it is not a sensible option.

Hong Kong's "one country two systems" was intended as "an example for Taiwan." Yet Beijing has adopted a hardline attitude, provoking outrage among the public in Hong Kong. It has chiled the hearts of the public on Taiwan. Who would be willing to accept such a "one country?" Expecting the public on Taiwan to accept chief executive elections in place of presidential elections is increasingly unthinkable.

Hong Kong is not Wukan Village. Wukan Village was surrounded by a dictatorial regime. Hong Kong has been a cosmopolitan city for centuries. It has a civil society with diversity of thought. Wukan Village finds itself under "one country, one system." Hong Kong has been given a political commitment of "one country, two systems." The election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive by means of universal suffrage now appears to have reached a bottleneck. This may not have been Deng Xiaoping's original intent. It may be the result of his successors attempting to make names for themselves. The failure of the election of the Chief Executive by means of universal suffrage, is regarded as a failure of "one country, two systems." It has provoked doubts about Hong Kong's political stability.

The Taiwan Region of the ROC is not Hong Kong. As mentioned earlier, Hong Kong is fighting for genuine universal suffrage in the election of the Chief Executive. The ROC government will be holding its sixth presidential election. Hong Kong is under the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China. But the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent government. Otherwise, how could it be holding its sixth presidential election? Hong Kong's dispute with Beijing is over civil rights and jurisdiction. Taipei's dispute with Beijing, conversely, is over sovereignty.

The controversy in Hong Kong is over the definition of "patriotism and love of Hong Kong." Beijing can charge people with sedition and treason. But it should not create a "Nomination Committee" to screen candidates for "patriotism and love of Hong Kong." Suppose Taipei had implemented "one country, two systems?" Would a "Nomination Committee" hold candidates to "patriotism and love of Taiwan?" The public on Taiwan would then be deprived of the right to "love the Republic of China." Any criticisms of the government of the People's Republic of China would be considered "unpatriotic and deficient in love for Taiwan." Can anyone imagine how chaotic Taiwan would be under such a situation? Moreover, Taipei is currently "decriminalizing Taiwan independence." It is relying on the subtle choice between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China to mollify public opinion and cope with Taiwan independence. But if "one country, two systems" eliminated the ROC, Taiwan independence would have to deal directly with the People's Republic of China. This would make the "patriotism and love for Taiwan" controversy even more complicated.

"One country, two systems" has hit the wall in Hong Kong. It has proved that "one country, two systems" cannot be applied to the Taiwan Region of the ROC. No matter what the global situation might be, and no matter how disputatious cross-Strait relations might be, Taiwan has the ROC and direct presidential elections. It could never accept a "Nomination Committee" vetting candidates for a "chief executive." Cross-strait issues cannot be solved by means of force. They require management. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China must consider solutions that do not involve a "dog eat dog," zero sum game approach.

Beijing may find it difficult to give up its "peaceful reunification, one country, two systems" plan. But reunification must preserve the Republic of China. "One country" must include the Republic of China. In other words, the ROC and the PRC should consider a "big roof concept of China," in which the two coexist side by side. In June of this year Raymond Burghardt and Sun Yafu met for second track talks in New York. They said that the "one country" in "one country two systems" should be redefined to include the Republic of China. Beijing has kept its promise that under "one country, two systems," "horses will continue to race, people will continue to dance." But the Taiwan Region of the ROC holds presidential elections. This is the fundamental issue.

We hope the impasse over universal suffrage in Hong Kong can be broken by means of a "five-step program," so as not to crash and burn. It would be a shame to destroy the political legacy of Deng Xiaoping's "one country, two systems." We hope that the Beijing authorities will "free their minds and acknowledge reality." We hope they will realize that Hong Kong-style "one country, two systems" cannot be implemented on Taiwan, and that the two sides should be thinking of a new "big roof concept of China" framework.

香港印證：一國兩制絕無可能行諸台灣
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.09.08 02:20 am

「一國兩制」最早是北京的對台方案，後來卻先行之於香港。當年香港回歸前，江澤民說過，在香港落實一國兩制，是給台灣看的，是「促成祖國統一的垂範」。而今，香港經驗卻印證：一國兩制不可能行諸台灣。

香港在「特首普選」出現瓶頸，而中華民國已是將舉行第六次總統直選的政體。試問：台灣人民如何可能接受由「提名委員會」產生候選人，而不是由政黨提名或人民連署推出？或者不再選舉總統而改選特首？這些都絕無可能！

北京若要台灣「選總統換選特首」，有兩種強制途徑。一、以武力拿下台灣；二、以經濟及外交纏垮中華民國。但是，若用這兩種方法來對付民主自由政體的中華民國，非但是與世界文明與國際輿論為敵，更將面對無法收拾的治理難題。亦即，北京若欲以武力或經濟外交糾纏來逼台灣就範，並非在實力上絕無可能，而是說這將闖下無法彌償的大禍，並將面臨內外皆難收拾的局面，故絕非明智的選項。

反過來說，如果香港的「一國兩制」是要作為「垂範台灣」之用，而北京卻用強硬的態度悍然否定香港的民意，這只會讓台灣人民看了感到心寒，有誰願意接受這樣的「一國兩制」？而若是要台灣以「選總統換選特首」，就愈發不可想像。

香港不是烏坎村，烏坎事件是被專政體制包圍的村落事件；但香港卻是百年國際都會，並且已具多元思考的公民社會。亦即，烏坎村在「一國一制」之下，但香港卻有「一國兩制」的政治承諾。因而，香港特首普選如今出現此種瓶頸，未必是原設計者鄧小平的初衷，而是後繼者無法發揚光大所致。「特首普選」的失敗，被視為「一國兩制」的失敗，亦為香港的政治穩定埋下隱憂。

何況，台灣不是香港。如前所述，香港是在爭取「特首真普選」，但中華民國將是第六次直選總統的政體。香港是在「中華人民共和國」的主權之下，但中華民國卻是一個主權獨立的政體，否則豈能第六次舉行總統直選？香港向北京爭的是「民權」與「治權」，而兩岸之間的問題卻是「主權」。

香港普選的爭議在「愛國愛港」的認定。北京其實可規定以內亂外患罪來審判叛國事件，卻不宜用「提名委員會」來進行「愛國愛港」的篩選。回過頭看，倘若台灣實施「一國兩制」，難道也將以「提名委員會」來主宰「愛國愛台」的標準？屆時，台灣人民被剝奪了「愛中華民國」的權利，若對「中華人民共和國政府」有批評即被指「不愛國／不愛台」，誰能想像台灣屆時將陷於如何不可收拾的局面？何況，台灣目前是「台獨除罪化」，唯賴在「中華民國」與「中華人民共和國」的微妙抉擇之間，以社會民意的依違來處理平撫台獨問題，但「一國兩制」若使中華民國終止存在，勢將使台獨直接對上「中華人民共和國」，那又將使「愛國愛台」的爭議更形複雜。

一國兩制在香港撞牆，更印證「一國兩制」不可能在台灣複製。暫不論世局及兩岸的萬般糾葛，只因台灣有中華民國，又直選總統，就絕不可能要台灣在「提名委員會」下去選「特首」。兩岸問題不能只看力，也要看理，必須在中華民國及中華人民共和國「不是你吃掉我，也不是我吃掉你」的方針下，來思考解決方案。

北京恐怕很難放棄「和平統一／一國兩制」的兩岸方案。但是，「統一」必須考慮「保全中華民國的統一」，「一國」則應考慮「包納中華民國的一國」，也就是應當思考中華民國與中華人民共和國共存並立的「大屋頂架構」。這也正是今年六月由薄瑞光、孫亞夫領軍在紐約舉行的二軌會談中所提，應當思考將「一國兩制」中的「一國」，「以包納中華民國的方式重新定義」。因為，即使實行「一國兩制」，北京承諾香港「馬照跑／舞照跳」，但台灣卻有一個「總統照選」的問題，這才是所有問題的根本。

我們希望香港的普選僵局未來能在「五部曲」的步驟中獲得改善，以免玉石俱焚，也勿就此毀掉了鄧小平「一國兩制」的政治遺產。更希望北京當局能「解放思想／實事求是」，及早認知「港式一國兩制」不可能行諸台灣，而應在「大一中架構」下思考新的兩岸架構。

Ten Questions vs. One Question: The Two Parties' Economic Achilles Heels

Ten Questions vs. One Question: The Two Parties' Economic Achilles Heels
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 5, 2014

Summary: The KMT and DPP must set aside their rote positions. They must listen to different opinions. They must recruit people with broader experience and greater wisdom. They must face the problem squarely. They must offer genuine policy options. If the ruling and opposition parties can move in this direction, then Taiwan's economy and its people may survive.

Full Text Below:

Last week, the Democratic Progressive Party held its first "citizen's economic conference." In her opening address, DPP Chairman Tsai Ing-wen asked the government "Ten Questions" about Taiwan's economy. She asked: Why has the economy nearly been suffocated? Why is work so hard to find? Why are wages declining? Why is the starting salary for a young person a mere 22,000 NT? Why have consumer prices increased? Why have real estate prices soared? Why is income disparity increasing? Why do people on the same Taiwan inhabit two different worlds? Why has Taiwan been left behind by South Korea? Why do government officials insist that Taiwan is no longer an Asian tiger? Where is Taiwan's economy headed? What has happened to the people's hope for the future? In response, KMT spokesman Chen Yi-hsing cited President Ma. Ma has repeatedly cited a Wall Street Journal editorial which asked, "Why has Taiwan left Itself Behind?" In short, Chen responded to Tsai's "Ten Questions" with "One Question." The exchange reflects the difference in economic thinking between the DPP and the ruling Kuomintang.

In fact, Tsai Ing-wen's "Ten Questions" are simply criticisms of the KMT's economic policies. Her barrage of questions underscores the two parties' vastly different solutions to economic problems. They too have failed to gain public approval.

The Ma administration and the KMT's key prescription for Taiwan's economic problems is liberalization. Its strategy is the liberalization of trade, first with the Mainland, then with the rest of the world. This thinking is rooted in the fact that the Mainland has become the world's largest trading entity, second largest economy, and since 2003, Taiwan's largest trading partner. Taiwan hopes to open up to the world, to participate in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Strategic Partnership Agreement), the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), and other regional economic organizations. To do so, it must first sign the FTA related cross-Strait agreements within the ECFA framework, such as the STA and MTA, and promote the FEPZs. Alas, the DPP persists in obstructing the STA, FEPZ, and Cross-Strait Agreements Oversight Regulations in the Legislative Yuan. As a result, Taiwan's negotiations with the Mainland have fallen behind South Korea's FTA negotiations. This could lead to billions in exports from Taiwan replaced by exports from South Korea. That is why the KMT demanded of Tsai, "Why has Taiwan left Itself Behind?"

Taiwan faces complex economic problems. In particular, intense internal and external pressure to change its economic structure in the wake of the financial tsunami. Emphasizing liberalization alone is the KMT's Achilles Heel. One. Liberalization alone cannot change an economic growth model overly dependent on exports, especially the "Taiwan takes the orders, then manufactures the product overseas" OEM export model. Two. Liberalization alone cannot problems with the growth model. It cannot remedy the disconnect between domestic employment and wages that has led to increased income disparity. Three. Liberalization alone lacks supporting industrial policy and structural adjustment measures. It cannot ensure the effectiveness of further liberalization of Taiwan's economy. Four. Taiwan's liberalization to the world, and participation in regional economic integration, remains limited by cross-Strait factors. These are not under our control. Liberalizing trade with the Mainland first strikes a sensitive cross-Strait policy nerve. It inevitably triggers opposition.

The Ma administration and the KMT's economic policy emphasizes the external and de-emphasizes the internal. This policy has lost the support of the public. It is meeting with great resistance. By contrast, the Democratic Progressive Party's economic policy emphasizes the internal and de-emphasizes the external. Tsai Ing-wen's "citizen economic conference" underscores innovation, employment, sustainable development and domestic issues in the real estate sector and SME development. Alas, on globalization and the sensitive policy of cross-Strait liberalization, she is clearly evasive, and has failed to break free of the DPP's habitual policy prescriptions.

Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP must be clear. Taiwan's population, natural resources, and market scale are limited. It cannot phase out its current overly export-dependent economic model overnight. Cross-Strait economic and trade relations are inseparable. Beijing's growing influence in the international community, and Taiwan's response to globalization and the world, make it impossible to bypass the Mainland market and the Beijing authorities. The DPP's biggest Achilles Heel has been cross-Strait relations. Yet all it does is blame the KMT for excessive reliance on the Mainland market. All it does is stress the need to balance international relations with cross-Strait relations. As for internal structural reforms, the DPP has an appealing policy statement. But so far it has failed to make any breakthroughs in policy sufficient to change the status quo. Their feasibility remains difficult to verify. Add to this the 2012 presidential election. Tsai has stressed "fairness and justice" in public housing, the capital gains tax, and real estate tax reform. These are all doable. But the government is already doing them. The differences in the two parties' policies are limited. The DPP may blast the Ma government, but charges of vilification without content continue to haunt Tsai Ing-wen.

The KMT emphasizes liberalization alone. It emphasizes external factors and de-emphasizes internal factors. The DPP blindly evades the core issue in cross-Strait relations. It emphasizes the internal and de-emphasizes the external. Both parties have Achilles Heels that expose them or entrap them. Neither offer healthy, sustainable modes of economic development. As Tsai pointed out, Taiwan's economic growth model and economic decision-making patterns must change. But how must they change? What must they be changed into? Neither party has an answer.

The KMT and DPP must set aside their rote positions. They must listen to different opinions. They must recruit people with broader experience and greater wisdom. They must face the problem squarely. They must offer genuine policy options. If the ruling and opposition parties can move in this direction, then Taiwan's economy and its people may survive.

社論－十問vs.一問 評兩黨經濟罩門
2014年09月05日 04:10
本報訊

民進黨上周召開首場「公民經濟會議」，民進黨主席蔡英文在開場致詞對當前台灣經濟向政府提出「十問」：為何經濟悶到不行？為何工作難找、薪資倒退、年輕人起薪只有22K？為何民生物價漲，房價飆？為何所得分配惡化，一個台灣、兩個世界？為何台灣被南韓超越，政府官員說早就沒有四小龍？未來台灣經濟何去何從，人民的希望在哪裡？對此，國民黨發言人陳以信則以馬總統近來多次提到《華爾街日報》社論反問：「台灣為何自甘落後？」這「十問」對「一問」，反映出當前民進黨和執政的國民黨截然不同的經濟思維。

事實上，蔡英文的「十問」，都是批評國民黨經濟政策的人，反覆在問的問題，顯示國民兩黨對解決經濟問題的思維，存在很大差異，也都未能獲得社會普遍的認同和肯定。

馬政府及國民黨對當前台灣經濟問題的最重要處方就是「開放」，而且是「先大陸，後全球」的開放策略。此一思維是鑑於中國大陸已成為全球第一大貿易國、第二大經濟體，自2003年起就是台灣第一大貿易伙伴，因而台灣要對全世界開放，參與TPP（跨太平洋戰略夥伴協定）、RCEP（區域全面經濟夥伴關係）等區域經濟整合，就先要完成具兩岸FTA性質、ECFA架構下的《服貿協議》、貨貿協議等，並推動自由經濟示範區。但民進黨在立院阻撓《服貿協議》、《自由經濟示範區特別條例》等經濟自由化法案審查，導致台灣落後於中韓FTA談判進度，可能造成台灣數百億美元出口商品被替代的威脅，因而國民黨才質問蔡英文：「台灣為何自甘落後？」

然而，當前台灣經濟問題錯綜複雜，尤其面對金融海嘯後內外經濟結構的劇烈調整，一味強調開放，難免暴露很多罩門：一是不能改變經濟成長過於依賴出口、特別是「台灣接單，海外生產」的代工出口模式；二是無法解決上述成長模式和國內就業、薪資嚴重脫節，並導致所得分配惡化問題；三是沒有配套的產業政策及結構調整措施，不能確保進一步開放對台灣經濟的總體效益；四是台灣對全球開放及參與區域經濟部整合，受限於兩岸因素，不能操之在我；先對大陸開放又觸及國內最敏感的兩岸政策分歧，以致引發一波波反對浪潮。

整體來看，馬政府及國民黨「重外輕內」的經濟政策思維，已失去凝聚內部共識能力，推動起來阻力很大。相對而言，民進黨的經濟政策思維，則是「重內輕外」，從蔡英文楬櫫「公民經濟會議」的規畫重點，可知其側重在創新、就業、永續發展及在地產業和中小企業發展等國內議題，但對全球化及敏感的兩岸開放政策，顯然避重就輕，未脫民進黨一貫的策略。

蔡英文及民進黨應該都很清楚，以台灣的人口條件、自然資源稟賦及市場規模與目前經濟型態，要擺脫高度依賴出口的結構絕非一蹴可幾，尤其兩岸經貿關係已密不可分，北京在國際社會影響力又與日俱增，台灣要因應全球化，和世界接軌，就不可能繞過大陸市場及北京當局。但兩岸事務一直是民進黨最大罩門，因而只能一味批評國民黨只想依賴大陸市場，空泛強調要追求全球和兩岸的平衡。至於內部結構改革，雖有華麗誘人的政策宣示，但迄今卻未能提出足以改變現狀的突破性政策構想，難以驗證其可行性。再加上2012總統大選蔡英文強調的「公平正義」，如社會住宅、資本利得稅、房地稅制改革等，不是行不通，就是政府已經在陸續推動，兩黨的政策主張差異有限，故民進黨批判馬政府火力雖強，但「空心」之譏評也始終纏繞著蔡英文。

國民黨一味強調開放、「重外輕內」的政策思維，和民進黨一味迴避兩岸核心問題、「重內輕外」的政策思維，都存在容易被戮破或自陷困境的罩門，不是健康、可持之以恆的經濟發展大道。誠如蔡英文指出，台灣經濟成長模式和經濟決策模式都要改變，但要如何作出改變？改變到哪裡去？兩黨卻都沒有答案。

國民黨和民進黨皆應拋開本位立場，聽取更多元的聲音，吸納更廣闊的經驗和智慧，實實在在地面對問題，拿出可以真正解決問題的政策方案。朝野兩大黨若皆能朝此方向努力，則台灣經濟之幸矣！國家人民之幸矣！